Brulosophy

[Newy]

Oh, and his Blond Ale is delicious!!

 

[anthonyUK]

I am a fan of the experiments as if nothing else they show where corners can be cut or processes can be changed, if you want to.
As mentioned regarding no chill, when the idea was floated people would have said it won't work, the resulting beer will be hazy and won't keep and I read the same sort of arguments against BIAB.
If you are happy with these and as far as I'm aware there are no flavour downsides then where is the issue?
The point being that as long as people are made aware of these points and the reasons for doing so then they can decide whether it is an appropriate step in their process especially when 'stacking' them.

 

[Glomp]

Hi all.

It is an interesting discussion but any scientist who designed the experiments the way he does would be given the boot. That being said I quite like the blogs as he is having a go.

But there is no replication, no trying to remove variables as you would expect because he hasn't got access to say hundreds of temperature controlled fermenters so that he can design experiments at an adequate level that could be peer reviewed.

I am an agricultural scientist and when looking at cropping systems small plots are used extensively. These plots can be only a 20 square metres but they are replicated and are acceptable to the industry to show the effect on larger trials and then onto broadacre crops which may be thousands of hectares. Its how science works. Lots of small doses, areas, treatments etc which are later tested in ever increasing scale.

 

[GalBrew]

I also enjoy reading the blog, but yeah as someone who earns a crust as a scientist it lacks rigour and replication.

 

[antiphile]

...as well as a reproducible (or even a quantifiable) means to measure the results.

 

[drsmurto]

Being on a forum for a long time does not make you the arbiter of who understands the science of brewing and who does not. Hubris is not an attractive character trait.

I'm glad you and the good Dr are here to share your experience and knowledge, but that does not give you some god given power to pass judgement on every little home brew related thing.

It's beginning to dawn on my obviously dull brain that neither of you have actually read the blog, or if you have you wilfully misunderstood it for trying to be something it isn't. Neither of you have actually commented on the content at all.

Fair criticism received, I hadn't actually read that specific blog. Given your comment that you intend to look at the peer reviewed journal I linked to it's only fair I do the same and read the blog in question.

So I've read a couple of entries, one on aeration and another on water chemistry, both topics well within my scientific expertise in addition to my brewing experience. Oxygen is an area i research in wine and only today submitted a review paper that touches on the area although the main focus is sulfur chemistry of wine.

I just wasted 20 mins of my life and I want them back. That is terrible ****, not even close to being scientific. In one of the water chemistry experiments he misses the mash in temperature by 7 degrees F and continues on as if this will have no impact. Really? Mash temperature is not important? A quick adjustment with a hand held heating wand and the experiment continues.

In the aeration experiment he uses different volumes of wort but the same volumes of yeast starter? What the? The FG was 4 points higher than expected which he blames on mash temperature but could just as easily be a yeast health issues. He also uses 7 tasters to come up with the conclusion that there is no difference and questions the advice given by yeast manufacturers to pitch in to well aerated wort?

Blind triangle tasting sounds scientific and it is a legitmate tool used within my industry to assess differences. It is repeated and the trials randomised. This brewer does neither and then quotes P values?

This is not science nor even close to. It is the adventures of a couple of brewers. That's it. The member 'Contrarian' recently used the phrase 'the plural of anecdote isn't data'. Love it. This blog is badly formed anecdotes.

If you insist on reading brewing 'blogs' rather than brewing science textbooks or the online journal i linked to, at least use Braukaiser.

 

[anthonyUK]

This is not science nor even close to. It is the adventures of a couple of brewers.

That is the way I assumed it was understood. Does anyone view these exbeeriments as scientifically accurate?

 

[Rocker1986]

That is the way I assumed it was understood. Does anyone view these exbeeriments as scientifically accurate?

I don't, because it's one data point and a handful of people. It is unlikely that it represents the majority. If they got 1000 homebrewers all in the same controlled environment brewing batches to test these things and had a shitload of people tasting and reporting on it, then maybe it would hold more weight.

I still enjoy reading the blog though. I've made two process changes as a result: the fast lager method, and harvesting yeast from starters instead of the trub after fermenting a batch. If I wasn't happy with these, then I would have ditched them. Other than that, it's unlikely I'll change anything else about my process, unless some convincing scientific data comes along about it.

I think the whole point of it isn't to **** on proven science, but just to challenge accepted views/practices in homebrewing. There must be some reason why transferring to secondaries is losing popularity, maybe because it has no perceivable benefits to the finished beer. Other homebrewers can have a go at these 'alternate' methods or not, it's completely up to them. I don't think the blog is trying to pass itself off as a science journal, it is simply documenting a few home brewing experiments and the results within a small group of people. I always thought the best thing about home brewing was indeed, experimentation.

Am I going to start doing 30 minute mashes? Highly unlikely. Same goes for 30 minute boils. If I did for some reason, and wasn't happy with the results, I wouldn't do it again, but I'd still have at least experimented with it and found that out for myself.

 

[TSMill]

Seems like home brewers do exBEERiments, and research chemists just wine......

 

[sp0rk]

I can almost hear the butthurt of the fanbois...

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Criticising brulosophy for not being scientific is like criticising the journals that DrSmurto linked to for not being funny.

The author himself has pointed out that the goal isn't scientific process, it's fun and experimentation.

This world breaking SHOCKING news just in: different things are different.

MHB/DrSmurto: I love your work in general, but I honestly don't see why you both strawmanned the website/author to argue about something that's not being disputed.

 

[drsmurto]

My point, and it seems almost everyone missed it, is that the blog is not even remotely useful to any brewer unless you have a '**** it, it's just beer attitude'. It's sloppy. It has almost no relevance to improving brewing as it is not done with any real care or understanding of how to conduct something that is reproducible. You would have to repeat everything yourself just to have an idea whether it actually works.

If you don't want brewing science in the droll format that a scientist writes it then I have pointed out Braukaiser as a good compromise between peer reviewed science and brewing forums.

Strawman? Seriously? **** it, I'm trying to help people out by pointing out the blog in question is not actually helpful. There is more useful information on this forum if anyone bothered to search for themselves.

This is one of the main reasons I went on hiatus from this place. Not sure why I bothered returning. NickJD may be gone but he left 1000 of his drones behind.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Apologies mate, as above, love your work and I genuinely read every post you write, i'm not trying to offend or annoy anyone here.

I don't think i've missed your point, it's just that no one is claiming it is what you are saying it isn't. (I.e a strawman).

I am in no way disputing your brewing knowledge, background or profession, I'm putting it to you that you have misinterpreted the aim of the website/author.

It's not helpful in the way you want it to be or think it should be, it's helpful in the way that it entertains on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

People don't read it because they want brewing science or to brew repeatable beer, they read it to be entertained and have fun.

Homebrew equivalent of Mythbusters.

 

[drsmurto]

The author of the blog may have intended it to be nothing more than a lazy Sunday afternoon blog but that is not the discussion that has occurred on this thread. The original post is all about the validity of the experiments. Hence no strawman. I think you've perhaps skipped the original post and only read the back and forth arguments that occurred later?

 

[MHB]

The problem is that without understanding what is going on in a process and several links have been posted to quality information; it is difficult to evaluate what the effect of a change in process will do.
Take the 30 minute boil idea, there are desirable changes in the wort that take time at a good boil to achieve; read this View attachment 02 - The function of wort boiling11.pdf; it's far from being a hard to follow technical tome, but it gives anyone a good basic understanding of why we boil a wort and what happens in the process. From there its easier to decide if you want to shorten your boil and what will happen if you do.

That's all I wanted to get across, unfortunately a lot of people read that you can do a short boil and still make acceptable beer and accept that without question.

There are commercially made beers that boil the wort for as little as 15 minutes (Kindl Weiss) and another whole style where unboiled wort is fermented (Shati). I an not saying that a short boil is bad just that there are consequences if you choose to do one and before you decide that its a good idea understand the price.

Same applies to every other part of brewing, every choice affects the beer, this is something that I believe is not taken on board by some who read information like Brulosophy.
Mark

 

[technobabble66]

I'm glad SD just posted that last clarifying reply above.
All that seems to have happened is a few crossed wires, and maybe some unfortunate emotive language to express one's opinion and then some defensive action:

OP posted "what's everyone think of this blog with some home HB trials?".
For better or worse, the trials are presented in a quasi-scientific manner and in spite of prominent disclaimers, are kinda discussed as semi-scientific results. Furthermore, the OP seems to be interpreting the blog as a set of scientific results, though done on a less-than-perfect home setting.

Basically it makes for some interesting reading and maybe even a few tips/"improvements" but most people, especially the experienced brewers, can also point to significant flaws in the methodology and the error of reading too much into the results. The brewers on here with an actual science/research background have taken the time to clarify that the blog is definitely in no way proper science ("proper" referring to reproducible, rigorous methodology, not an authoritarian conspiracy), and should not be mistaken for what is actual science & scientific results as per published in peer-review journals. Most people on here seem to have already understood that (and had mentioned it in their posts), but i think it's valuable to have that clarification in black and white - people of a non-research background sometimes see little difference between well written blogs and a peer-review research journal.
The input of everyone in these discussions is valuable, but especially so the detailed responses/explanations from the more highly experienced brewers and those with a deeper science understanding of (home) brewing. It helps make AHB a foundation of knowledge, rather than just internet opinion.

FWIW, as someone with a science background, i can appreciate that people who are in the science industry, namely the researchers, get a little exasperated with most other people apparently blurring between rigorous reproducible peer-reviewed scientific research & experimentation, and everything else which can sometimes be little more than anecdotal opinion. That's not to say any basic opinion must therefore be wrong, it's just that it's only an opinion until more rigorously demonstrated. Or just an interesting result in an home brewery, etc. Sometimes important knowledge/science can start off in such a setting, but it's not really reliable or credible until its been shown to be reproducible in a rigorous process.

Apologies for the long post, but reading this thread was starting to feel like a train wreck in slow motion, even though i think it was a valuable discussion topic to initiate.

EDIT: i should add i really like the kind of stuff Brulosopher is doing; but yeah, i'd take it with a massive grain of salt. Some great nuggets in there and i like to see boundaries tested; but there's a few seriously loose bits of process in there and i'm a little worried that anyone who wasn't mindful enough to pick up on those might come away with a some poor ideas.

 

[oglennyboy]

A good chat, plenty of thought and useful links to boot, that's why I really like this forum!
For my contribution I'd like to add this document for reader's perusal, it was something I found when I was stuck with an urn that pooped itself and would not do more than a mild simmer of about 92-95*C. Read in conjunction with Mark's link in the post above it makes for interesting reading, and I think really highlights one of the main things I've taken away from the discussion: the variability of ONE element is generally not going to be massively important to the overall end result, as long as it's in the ballpark. So no need to freak out & dump a beer if the day doesn't quite go to plan

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1966.tb02933.x/pdf

For what it's worth, my simmered beers turned out just fine, a bit less clear, but not screamingly different.
cheers!

 

[Newy]

MHB, Thanks for the link to the Boiling Wort pdf, an excellent read.


Cheers.

 

[Forever Wort]

Essentially in home brewing whatever works for you, on your system, with the beer styles you brew and with your own subjective palate, is sufficient for your purposes. But it is not necessarily going to be the case for everyone else brewing different beers on different systems with different tastes. Your brewing observations cannot be conclusive contributions to an esoteric, scientific, universal "brewing truth" that does away with these variables. Our opinions as brewers are still important - they're just not pure science. And I for one am thankful for that.

In my view the Brulosopher is sharing anecdotes and not pretending to be a scientist. Many of his conclusions are sound for his (and many of our) purposes - it's on the occasion when he is tempted to extrapolate that things get messy.
But in general I think he maintains a casual tone that belies the occasional digression and he poses more questions than he tries to answer.

And as per my original post in this thread: none of his exBEERiments have been groundbreaking. None of his claims are extravagant. Thus he will probably continue to coast on through and profit from his blog.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

The author of the blog may have intended it to be nothing more than a lazy Sunday afternoon blog but that is not the discussion that has occurred on this thread. The original post is all about the validity of the experiments. Hence no strawman. I think you've perhaps skipped the original post and only read the back and forth arguments that occurred later?

I interpret the OP as asking questions and opening the discussions, asking for opinions and finding the ideas interesting rather than presenting a viewpoint, I appreciate it's a broad/large post though, can be looked at a few ways.

Thanks for the reply.